• Mossberg Owners is in the process of upgrading the software. Please bear with us while we transition to the new look and new upgraded software.

Mossberg Suing Manufacturers of Drop-In Triggers

Stupid OFM. I love my Mossberg shotguns and would even buy a 930 JM Pro. If OFM proceeds, I'll save my money and go with Benelli. OFM and smart gun technology and their reputation for terrible customer service are among reasons I went with Savge for a rifle.
 
I do own a CMC trigger and I like it a lot.

I also own others that I don't like. And have used others that I like better.

While I understand and support protecting your intellectual property, I am curious how they are saying that all "drop in" triggers infringe on that.

A lot of gun patents mention that they fire a bullet too, but that doesn't mean they "own" everything that relates to firing a bullet out of the gun.

After looking closely at the CMC, and seeing many of the others that are named in the suit, and noticing rather handily that there is little in common with each other in trigger width and other noticeable details, the only thing I am seeing that they could possibly use against them is the term "drop-in". To which I would have to say that even an OEM trigger "drops in" if you are going to get technical about it.

I would be interested in seeing technical specifics of how each or any of these products step over into their patent and it would seem that OFM is grasping at straws on this one.

All I see from this is a bunch of out of court settlements and a bunch of companies will no longer use "drop in" as an explanation to how easily they are to install. They'll use terms like "easily swappable" and "falls in place" and "slide in" and "guaranteed fit" and other terms besides than "drop in".

I also suspect that each company will individually, or perhaps as a class action group will counter-sue OFM. And perhaps rightfully so.
 
I hope they due counter sue and I seriously hope they don't settle and give in to what amounts to a shake down. OFM is almost giving the appearance they want to be seen by the left as a "responsible" gun manufacturer. I'd be interested in seeing where some of their money is going.
 
Yes, because gun owners never forget.

I still remember when Bill Ruger helped the klintons with the AWB.

I haven't purchased a Ruger product since.

I don't buy from Cheaper Than Dirt.

I don't support or donate money to the Democratic party.

I don't drink Starbucks coffee.

I didn't like it when Kmart caved in to the anti's after Columbine and stopped selling firearm/products.

There's a lot of places on my list of "non-desirables".

I remember when Colt sued numerous AR15 manufacturing for using the term "M4" in their description.

I remember HK sued GSG over using the term MP5 to describe their 22LR rifle. In reality, HK had a 22LR trainer back in the 1970's and they were just mad that it was an unsuccessful platform and the GSG was selling hand over fist.

There are many others.

But as I said in my opening sentence. Gun owners never forget.
 
just wrong


Those are the mild version of what I had in mind, but I digress.

Essentially, Mossberg is claiming that if there is a trigger group that is encompassed in a housing separate to the lower itself, they hold the patent on it.

I hope the others do start a class action suit against Mossberg.

And I hope they whoop their butts in the process of it.

To my knowledge, the CMC was NOT the first to patent that component.

Even a factory OEM trigger can have their springs changed and make the trigger pull lighter or stronger.

OFM, WTF?

Really?
 
CMC Triggers said:
CMC Triggers is a Christian company, privately held and not owned by O.F. Mossberg or anyone else.
We pay our bills when they’re due including our royalty responsibility to O.F. Mossberg.

Fair competition in the market place is only fair if the playing field is level.

We proudly stand with them in their pursuit of what is right in regard to all the companies that infringe on their Patent.
Shame on anyone that would spin negatively O.F. Mossberg exercising their right under law to collect royalties.

Jack R Biegel, Pres. CMC Triggers Corp.
 
I guess I'm shamed because I don't see where having an internal housing is a patent infringement.
 
From the second link it this thread...
a person can drop in the patented modular trigger assembly and attach it to the firearm by two of the firearm’s existing pins. 10. The ‘385 patent fully describes and illustrates a preferred embodiment of the patented modular trigger assembly. That embodiment comprises: a module housing; two hollow modular pins having opposite ends mounted within two pairs of aligned holes in opposing sidewalls of the housing; and the firearm’s trigger group components (e.g., a trigger and a hammer) mounted on the modular pins, inside the housing, for rotation about those modular pins. Upon placing the drop-in trigger between two sidewalls of a lower receiver, two other pins (e.g., the two existing pins mentioned in Paragraph 9 above) are inserted through the following aligned holes: a pair of holes in each of the receiver sidewalls; and the two hollow modular pins.
I think a lot of this suit will hinge on the mounting method. Even if the others making drop in trigger groups that are designed and function differently enough they can get them here if they mount the same (and I'm guessing they do). The slithering lawyers will be making out even as OFM takes it on the chin.
 
Ok folks, here is more info concerning this.

It is unavoidable having trigger/hammer that attaches with 2 pins. That's how the gun is designed and how ALL ar15 trigger assemblies mount since their inception in the late 1950's. I think they're just fussing about the little housing they're in.

I only have 1 CMC trigger assembly. I am strongly considering selling it at the moment for a loss simply to buy one from one of the other manufacturers that are being sued just to support those guys. Furthermore, I will no longer be purchasing anything else that Mossberg or CMC makes if they're wanting to be like that.

Looks like Mossberg had sued Timney triggers back in 2014, in which it was determined that Mossberg could go screw themselves and that Mossberg had patented a design that was already in the public domain.

While the entire link below is important, article IV on the bottom of page 6 and article V through the first few paragraphs on page 7, I believe is the most damning to Mossberg and their patent as evidence in the Conclusion of the findings starting on page 9.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B30Xuqt4epx9c2xLSkhLNU1IYmdvdTNQX285WHFFUGlxOTln/view

CMC triggers stands to be the winner, regardless of whether they initiated the suit or not. Either Mossberg wins and everyone has to start paying royalties and they get more business because the other companies will have to pay or re-design, or Mossberg will lose the lawsuit and CMC stands to stop paying royalties.
 
I'll take a look at the link here in a moment, but if the housing is the issue, several companies have gone to a skeletonized design which would seem like enough of a design change.
 
Read the conclusion on page 9.

Patent trade office said mossbergs (McCormicks) patent 7,293,385 http://www.google.com/patents/US7293385 was essentially junk.

More or less on all grounds that they looked at. At least comparing to Timney's product.
 
So then it looks like a shake down for settlement money from companies unable to fight it out in court. But if they all stand together, then maybe they could survive it. Unless a judge reviews the previous case and dismisses it?
 
Essentially yes in my opinion. While their patent still stands to my knowledge, they pretty much said Timney's patent stood on its' own and was not an infringement. That is the bulk of the review I linked.

To me, this is like throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks.
 
From the first link: "Therefore, the Mossberg is NOT a patent for a drop-in trigger group, it is patent simply for using two pins to secure a trigger group." I also read this in another article that I just saw. It's what I was thinking before. To me it's the equivalent of legal technicality and seems to be an overreach for such a large lawsuit. To me the design of a drop in trigger is "the design". It would show how badly Mossberg looks if these articles were titled "Mossberg sues small companies because they mount a trigger with pre existing pins". I don't like lawyers.

From another article I read the following. If it's true does not speak well for Mossberg. I included their response to the question too:
As for why the company filed all 12 cases at once, Langlotz said it may be a question of strategy. “Sometimes companies will go after the weakest infringer so they can really win big and then set a precedent,” he said. “And it’s very possible that they have already … with public litigation or perhaps just negotiation where they ended up getting a royalty rate.”
Mossberg’s general counsel, Joseph Bartozzi, had a much simpler explanation for filing in bulk. “We’re just trying to be efficient with our use of time,” he told Guns.com.
 
Back
Top